>>2423110Funnily enough I've done both, 1200 miles in boots and 900 in runners (replaced twice)
Here's why I preferred runners:
Boots cost 100-200 for decent PU midsoled ones (forget EVA midsole, may as well use runners) and last approx 900-1200 miles. Runners can be had for 30-50 end of season/sales. Good runners like Agravics or Speedcross can last over 500 miles before midsole compression and I've had some do over 700 before sole lost grip and uppers shredded. More on softer terrain.
You'll be burning a lot more calories and taking longer to recover in boots as they are a lot heavier, especially when wet (and slower to drain/dry). You can think of this in money if you like.
You'll be slower, runners encourage faster walking by weight and sole shape. This costs more in time and food.
Tougher boot soles are less tacky and grippy compounds and are often slippier, and often use deep hard tread which is less pleasant to walk on. The soles are harder, often less flexible nor cushioning.
Boots are hot in high heat and dry very slowly in wet so lead to faster foot problems. Most surplus boots have fungus issues for this reason (cut them open if you don't believe me). Runners drain, dry and breathe better.
I don't need ankle protection for my pack weights, nor very rigid heels. I wear gaiters when a high shaft shoe is needed.
Runner masterrace.
